Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
On June 9th, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Acadia Pharms. Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP)...more
In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was nonobvious despite prior...more
INOMax® (nitric oxide) - Case Name: Mallinckrodt Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC, Civ. No. 22-1648-RGA, 2025 WL 472557 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2025) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: INOMax® (nitric...more
Novartis markets and sells a combination therapy of valsartan and sacubitril under the brand name Entresto® for the treatment of various forms of heart failure. MSN submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking...more
Minocin® (minocycline) - Case Name: Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 21-2636, 2024 WL 4799896 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024) (Kness, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Minocin® (minocycline);...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a District of Delaware decision that invalidated claims of Novartis’s Orange Book listed patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (the “’659 patent”), for its blockbuster drug Entresto®, a...more
In 2024, the Hatch-Waxman Act continued to play a critical role in the U.S. pharmaceutical landscape, driving the dynamics between brand-name drugmakers and generics. This landmark legislation, enacted to encourage innovation...more
This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the...more
In UCB Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement of invalidity on obviousness grounds but reversed the finding of anticipation. In reaching its decision on anticipation,...more
On Wednesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced approval to Mylan Pharmaceuticals for a generic form of Allergan's RESTASIS® (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion 0.05%) product for treatment of chronic dry eye. ...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit reversed findings of non-obviousness and affirmed (over Chief Judge Prost's dissent) a finding that claims asserted in ANDA litigation were not invalid for failure to satisfy the written...more
In an appeal decided last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana finding claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944 to be invalid as obvious. The panel also...more
The Federal Circuit continues its explication of the law of obviousness post-KSR Int'l. v. Teleflex Inc. (and Judge Pauline Newman continues to disagree with her brethren in some regards) in a decision handed down last...more
In something of an anticlimax, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, granted Allergan's motion to join the St. Regis Mohawk...more
In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions...more
On May 1st, the Federal Circuit ruled that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the statutory meaning of “on sale” where the existence of a sale was publicly announced prior to patenting, even if the sale did not...more
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit provided much-anticipated guidance on the scope of the America Invents Act’s “on-sale” bar provision. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Nos. 2016-1284, 2016-1787...more
The intersection of patent law, drug regulations, creative lawyering, and commerce (if not outright greed) has once again arisen in a qui tam suit brought under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 (alleging fraud against the U.S....more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. et al. 1:16-cv-04438; filed July 21, 2016 in the District Court of New Jersey -...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. 3:16-cv-02703; filed May 18, 2016 in the Northern District of California. ...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Janssen Biotech Inc. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00679; filed August 3, 2015 in the District Court of...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Mylan Pharma Acquisition Ltd. et al. v Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC 1:15-cv-06700; filed July 30, 2015 in the Northern District...more
Last week, in Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana determined that Eli Lilly and Company had shown by a...more
There have been many voices raised in recent years against the patent system for a variety of political, policy, or personal reasons. Indeed, there is even a book entitled Don't File a Patent that sets out the authors'...more